, and who is winning in this battle

dgreatrock:

, and who is winning in this battle

Whoever told you its a battle?

We are rubbing minds here.

Deep Sight:

Whoever told you its a battle?

We are rubbing minds here.

4uk u, Idiot

Deep Sight:

Hi Just Cool.

Its always sooo great to hear from you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Deep Sight!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Remain blessed

Perfection

Perfection can only be used in reference to a function.

A thing with a function is usually a created thing.

Unless God is a created being he cannot be 'perfect'.

If a make a knife for cutting cheese, it may or may not fulfill the function perfectly. If it fulfills the function perfectly then it is a perfect cheese knife. However it may not be a very good knife for chopping wood. Things are only perfect with regard to a certain function.

Could God be a perfect murderer? Or a perfect Assassin? There are those that are trained for the purpose of assasinating others. They may achieve various degrees of perfection in their training. Could God be a perfect sinner?

I do not like God being described as perfect.

Deep Sight:

Whoever told you its a battle?

We are rubbing minds here.

O! I see!!!

BADLEE:

4uk u, Idiot

And who is this fellow so vulgar in speech

Pastor AIO:

Perfection

Perfection can only be used in reference to a function.

A thing with a function is usually a created thing.

Unless God is a created being he cannot be 'perfect'.

If a make a knife for cutting cheese, it may or may not fulfill the function perfectly. If it fulfills the function perfectly then it is a perfect cheese knife. However it may not be a very good knife for chopping wood. Things are only perfect with regard to a certain function.

Could God be a perfect murderer? Or a perfect Assassin? There are those that are trained for the purpose of assasinating others. They may achieve various degrees of perfection in their training. Could God be a perfect sinner?

I do not like God being described as perfect.

Pastor, this dissapoints me somewhat.

Can there not be a summit of all meaning and existence?

Is that quantity not an absolute?

How do you drag down the meaning of perfection to refer only to qualifications of degrees of functions in created things?

Does it not occur to you that the very idea of perfection must per force have a summit?

Beyond creation?

Deep Sight:

Pastor, this dissapoints me somewhat.

Can there not be a summit of all meaning and existence?

Is that quantity not an absolute?

How do you drag down the meaning of perfection to refer only to qualifications of degrees of functions in created things?

Does it not occur to you that the very idea of perfection must per force have a summit?

Beyond creation?

These are questions whose comprehension I can barely grasp. I don't think they even apply to the points I raised. My issue is merely one to do with the english language. When the word 'perfect' is used, it is used to refer a specific function. Things are perfect for a certain situation. Perfection doesn't mean anything if it stands alone.

and btw neither does 'great'. If God is great, what do you mean? Great at what? Other people in history that we've called Great were called so for a reason. Alexander the Great was a great soldier and empire builder. Charlemagne was also a great warrior and empire builder. Is that what we mean by Great when applied to God? That he is a great warrior?

Pastor AIO:

These are questions whose comprehension I can barely grasp. I don't think they even apply to the points I raised. My issue is merely one to do with the english language. When the word 'perfect' is used, it is used to refer a specific function. Things are perfect for a certain situation. Perfection doesn't mean anything if it stands alone.

and btw neither does 'great'. If God is great, what do you mean? Great at what? Other people in history that we've called Great were called so for a reason. Alexander the Great was a great soldier and empire builder. Charlemagne was also a great warrior and empire builder. Is that what we mean by Great when applied to God? That he is a great warrior?

My dissapointment is steadily increasing.

Perhaps we need to start ab initio, since you are a theist after all, and ask what exactly you understand by the word - "God."

Because I know very well that an accurate view would be to state that HE/ SHE/ IT is the source, synopis and core-egg of ALL existence.

Given that, how could you have said this -

Is that what we mean by Great when applied to God? That he is a great warrior?

God, my friend, is not just a "great warrior" or "great artist" or "great whatever," but rather the absolute oiginal and infinite greateness of ALL Things. All existence.

That's why i spoke about a summit of all perfection.

Now you are beginning to wander again into the muddled grey zone that i found you in when i opened this thread. You are exasperated that the word "perfection" should be used in describing God. You insist that you are discussing "grammar" alone. This comes shortly after you tried to ascribe a "fall" and "sacrifice" to God ever before he created anything.

I am frankly worried.

And concerned that the underlying confusions (or contradictions) within your spiritual world-view still remain unabated.

I don't know what more I can do or say to stress the ineffability of God.

[size=13pt]"When your intellect conceives of God, do not permit urself to imagine that there is a God that exists as depicted by you. For if you do this you will have a finite and corporeal conception of God, God forbid. Instead, your mind should dwell on the affirmation of God's existence and then recoil. To do more than this is to allow the imagination to reflect on God as God is in Himself and such reflection is bound to result in imaginative limitations and corporeality. Put reins therefore on your intellect and do not allow it too great a freedom, but assert God's existence and deny your intellect the possibility of comprehending God" 16th century kabbalist Moses cordevero[/size]

Krayola:

[size=13pt]"When your intellect conceives of God, do not permit urself to imagine that there is a God that exists as depicted by you. For if you do this you will have a finite and corporeal conception of God, God forbid. Instead, your mind should dwell on the affirmation of God's existence and then recoil. To do more than this is to allow the imagination to reflect on God as God is in Himself and such reflection is bound to result in imaginative limitations and corporeality. Put reins therefore on your intellect and do not allow it too great a freedom, but assert God's existence and deny your intellect the possibility of comprehending God" 16th century kabbalist Moses cordevero[/size]

Correctomondo.

Krayola:

[size=13pt]"When your intellect conceives of God, do not permit urself to imagine that there is a God that exists as depicted by you. For if you do this you will have a finite and corporeal conception of God, God forbid. Instead, your mind should dwell on the affirmation of God's existence and then recoil. To do more than this is to allow the imagination to reflect on God as God is in Himself and such reflection is bound to result in imaginative limitations and corporeality. Put reins therefore on your intellect and do not allow it too great a freedom, but assert God's existence and deny your intellect the possibility of comprehending God" 16th century kabbalist Moses cordevero[/size]

This is both impossible and impractical.

The concept of the imagination has its limits and capacity. its infinite status is defined by its finite components/subject, . . . . .in this case God.
God in the imagination/intellect of man is bound to be definite and finite. It takes revelation and spiritual insight to gasp the aura of infinity or the divinity of the spiritual realm and God.

I don't see what is so impossible or impractical about rejecting any concepts of God that one might dream up.

Pastor AIO:

I don't see what is so impossible or impractical about rejecting any concepts of God that one might dream up.

Baba ke. Mo ti re fun yin jaare.

abuzola999:

'Do those who disbelieved think that they can take My slaves (Angels, Jesus, mary, Ezra, sun, etc) as gods besides Me ? Verily, We have prepared Hell as an entertainment for the disbelievers'

Quran 18:102

who is banning abuzola?

Abuzola u need to stop pasting koran verses on every thread. . . .its called spamming.
why not open a special thread where u can dump ur verses. . .then if and when we want to read we will go to the thread.

noetic15:

who is banning abuzola?

Abuzola u need to stop pasting koran verses on every thread. . . .its called spamming.
why not open a special thread where u can dump your verses. .  .then if and when we want to read we will go to the thread. 

Abuzola is on an e-jihad mission. . . . just let him be. . . .

@Pastor AIO and Deepsight. I have read and thoroughly enjoyed the very acute and intelligent conversation on this thread. I think I understand what Pastor AIO means when he says perfection can only be used in reference to a function. In my grope around these issues, I perceive God to be beyond perfection itself. Like Pastor said, he is ineffable. And Deepsight, please consider this: perfection is the tipping point to nothingness. Infinity, eternity, omnipotence- these are terms used in understanding God. He is absolutely borderless in space, time and power, whereas perfection is precise, defined and thoroughly within the grasp of time, space and even power! So, in a way, perfection is ineffectual in grasping God. What do you think?

AlaniTiógo:

@Pastor AIO and Deepsight. I have read and thoroughly enjoyed the very acute and intelligent conversation on this thread. I think I understand what Pastor AIO means when he says perfection can only be used in reference to a function. In my grope around these issues, I perceive God to be beyond perfection itself. Like Pastor said, he is ineffable. And Deepsight, please consider this: perfection is the tipping point to nothingness. Infinity, eternity, omnipotence- these are terms used in understanding God. He is absolutely borderless in space, time and power, whereas perfection is precise, defined and thoroughly within the grasp of time, space and even power! So, in a way, perfection is ineffectual in grasping God. What do you think?

Brilliant! I accept. Makes perfect sense. Nonetheless i suspect there is a bit of hair-splitting involved in that. Because we can only work with words, however limited such words may be. If we screen out the word "perfect" we can also screen out all other words which may be used to define attributes of God - on the same grounds that he is absolutely ineffable, and any human words must perforce limit him. If we carry on with that, we will even screen out the word "God" and adopt the old Jewish tradition of never mentioning his name at all, as a sign of its very holiness and ineffability. I hope you thus appreciate the fact that we must use some words, no matter how limiting they may be, and the word "perfect" is not a bad start. . .

Nonetheless i believe that in this line below, you have shown the depth and high quality of your mind -

AlaniTiógo:

And Deepsight, please consider this: perfection is the tipping point to nothingness. Infinity, eternity, omnipotence-

Just brilliant.

P.s: That's a unique username - what does it mean?

Welcome to NairaLand.

@Deepsight. The discourse, I agree, will involve hair splitting inevitably. Yes, we are forever bound to communicating these things through words. And that is the problem: rolling the boulders forever on the mountain like Sisyphus, and just when we think we reach the summit, we just have to start again.

There is something of that cycle in the nature of your exchanges with Pastor AIO. But at the end, insights accrue; flashes of gold, the soul gets richer, I hope. And this may help the seeker, in his probe from within, to discover fresh locus of meaning in himself, and bring the numinous to bear more in the daily progress of life.

At any rate I am interested in exploring this numinousity called God; seeing if the soul that accepts will discover new storehouses of knowledge: the higher we climb the more we see, the deeper we burrow the more we know. And if boon is granted by the gods, truths will flow- followed by social action, appropriation, and necessarily, corruption by political power, then decay, then we start to roll the stone at the beginning of the mountain again: I’d really like to know the take of ifa/orisa/Yoruba traditions on all these. Okay, enough of my ranting…


“P.s: That's a unique username - what does it mean?”

Many thanks for the welcome, Deepsight. Was moved to register and post my comments on the very many illuminating posts from you sages. Alani is one of my names. Since Sunny ade is Ishola o go, I decided to be Alani Tiogo; Alani ti ko go, meaning in Yoruba, Alani that refuses to be foolish. I admit not in all cases though, lol.

Pastor - Where are you - God has answered our prayers and sent us a gifted one - Alanitiogo!

I am really looking forward to rubbing minds with you, sir.

Brilliant! I accept. Makes perfect sense. Nonetheless i suspect there is a bit of hair-splitting involved in that. Because we can only work with words, however limited such words may be. If we screen out the word "perfect" we can also screen out all other words which may be used to define attributes of God -  on the same grounds that he is absolutely ineffable, and any human words must perforce limit him. If we carry on with that, we will even screen out the word "God" and adopt the old Jewish tradition of never mentioning his name at all, as a sign of its very holiness and ineffability. I hope you thus appreciate the fact that we must use some words, no matter how limiting they may be, and the word "perfect" is not a bad start. . .

Perfection in the sense in which deepsight used it cannot be separated from omnipotence, omnipresense and omniscience. My sensing is that deepsight is not using perfection as a description of a function or functions, rather as a living attribute which resides only in the creator and thus unattainable by creatures of the creator. It is true that the essense of God cannot be understood by creatures of God but creatures can understand the will of God. This is because the will of God is embodied in the activities of God. The entire creation is an act of will of God. That act of will of God can be understood by all creatures who wish to do so, atleast as much as the are capable of absorbing. For God, everything else is within space and time including his divine kingdom as well as his spiritual kingdom. However for creatures, an experience of time and space is relative and dependent on the origin of such a creature as well as his spirtual maturity. Thus a spirit whose inner maturity coresponds to the material things will see the astral plane for instance as beyound time and space, and even formless. But if the same spirit attains a maturity that enables him to be above or atleast with the same vibrations of the astral plane, then the astral plane that was originally formless and beyound time and space is then within time and space and have very clear forms,  and so on. Thus a spirit in heaven of human spirits will see heaven of higher spirits as formless, and beyound space and time and yet beings higher than these high spirits will see their abode of these higher spirits as having form and can be reproduced in a picture. The summary is that everything else except God can be reproduced as a picture and thus within time and space. But this time and space, the form and the boundaries can only be seen by a creature at the same or above the oscillation of that particular time and space. Thus when people describe some experience as beyound time and space, that is only true with respect to their on inner maturity at that time, further inner maturity will convince them that what they originally taught to be beyound time, space is actually with time and space and has clearly define boundaries. Even the entire creation has very definit boundaries but one who found counsciousness within creation will never reach that boundary and thus will never see the form, the error may then enter in concept that creation is infinte or that creation and the creator are inseparable. And yet one who has no beiginning or end like Jesus, the son of God will clearly see that the entire creation is within space and time and have clear boundaries.

Now, one can say that while the essence of God cannot be understood and thus formless, acts of will of God have forms and these forms manifest depending on the "frequency" of the oscillation of the particular plane. Thus, strange as it may sound, an act of Gods will is only limitless if it resides in God but if it manifests outside of God, then these acts of will are bound or limited by the space and time to which such manifestation takes place. Thus if God decides to enter creation to bring Truth to human beings, it has to be via incarnation in which God has to envelope himself in various cloaks vibrating under different space and time until it takes the physical cloak which has the lowest vibration. That happened 2000 years ago in Jesus of Nazareth. If God want to harvest yam, then God has to sow yam because God originally made yam to give yam. It is imposssible even for God to turn yam into plantain or a stone into a fish. Thus to expect God to change the intrinsic qualities of yam reproduction so that it becomes tomatoes is wishful thinking and clearly demonstrates that such a one seem not to understand what perfection, omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence simply means. It is also the same reason why people expect miracles that are simply an impossibility and end up been disappointed. It is also the same reason why people also think that certain things are impossible and yet those things are possible. A man who intutively studies the various acts of will of God will come to an understanding of the language of God. That Language is clearly written in the entire creation as well as in every species whether living or "non living". All revelations,  prophecies or fresh acts of Gods will simply follow the same road that previous acts of Gods will have followed, therein lies the perfection which deepsight is trying to put across. Maybe some day an opportunity will present itself where we discuss what is meant by the laws of God. Stay blessed.

“Perfection in the sense in which deepsight used it cannot be separated from omnipotence, omnipresense and omniscience. My sensing is that deepsight is not using perfection as a description of a function or functions, rather as a living attribute which resides only in the creator and thus unattainable by creatures of the creator. It is true that the essense of God cannot be understood by creatures of God but creatures can understand the will of God. This is because the will of God is embodied in the activities of God. The entire creation is an act of will of God. That act of will of God can be understood by all creatures who wish to do so, atleast as much as the are capable of absorbing. For God, everything else is within space and time including his divine kingdom as well as his spiritual kingdom. However for creatures, an experience of time and space is relative and dependent on the origin of such a creature as well as his spirtual maturity. Thus a spirit whose inner maturity coresponds to the material things will see the astral plane for instance as beyound time and space, and even formless. But if the same spirit attains a maturity that enables him to be above or atleast with the same vibrations of the astral plane, then the astral plane that was originally formless and beyound time and space is then within time and space and have very clear forms, and so on. Thus a spirit in heaven of human spirits will see heaven of higher spirits as formless, and beyound space and time and yet beings higher than these high spirits will see their abode of these higher spirits as having form and can be reproduced in a picture. The summary is that everything else except God can be reproduced as a picture and thus within time and space. But this time and space, the form and the boundaries can only be seen by a creature at the same or above the oscillation of that particular time and space. Thus when people describe some experience as beyound time and space, that is only true with respect to their on inner maturity at that time, further inner maturity will convince them that what they originally taught to be beyound time, space is actually with time and space and has clearly define boundaries. Even the entire creation has very definit boundaries but one who found counsciousness within creation will never reach that boundary and thus will never see the form, the error may then enter in concept that creation is infinte or that creation and the creator are inseparable. And yet one who has no beiginning or end like Jesus, the son of God will clearly see that the entire creation is within space and time and have clear boundaries.”

@M_Nwankwo. Intriguing exegesis you have there. And I find your definition of formlessness in spiritual realms as only a limitation of the percipient from a lower realm unique. Or is there any system of religious or philosophical thought expousing this? Will like to know more, intellectually.
“It is imposssible even for God to turn yam into plantain or a stone into a fish. Thus to expect God to change the intrinsic qualities of yam reproduction so that it becomes tomatoes is wishful thinking and clearly demonstrates that such a one seem not to understand what perfection, omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence simply means.”

Don’t see the connection of this to perfection. Even the ability to transform yam to stone isn’t necessarily the assurance of perfection or omnipotence. Think about it: omnipotence means infinitely and eternally potent. Not sure if one’s level of maturity, either as man or even as a higher form of existence, would guarantee a stage when ‘laws’ can be teased out of the concept of God.

Whatever gets trapped can only be principles- divine principles; trapped only by man at his level of understanding, however low. These principles may be incomplete, a mere glimpse of the numinous, but it must not be insincere. The individual gains a better understanding, the society, perhaps a richer humanity…but it will always be limited. No need to be squeamish about this. We are not God.

I say this entirely within my limits as a subject, a person, a singular being, who seeks and finds, who thinks and grasps within my personal universe. Everybody inheres his or her own personal universe of understanding. Intellectually, we may reach a concourse of meaning, but the spiritual paths are always lonely. Maybe we should have a new map of the soul, a new language: how do I communicate a spiritual truth, independent of words, which is necessarily logic-bound? Again, am interested in what Ifa/Odinani/Orisa or any other African or non-Western system of thought have to say on these.

@Deepsight. “If we carry on with that, we will even screen out the word "God" and adopt the old Jewish tradition of never mentioning his name at all, as a sign of its very holiness and ineffability.”
(I want to box this quote like you guys do, but don’t know how)
Yes. This evokes an image of a hunched old jewish codger in skullcaps and a flowing beard, shaking his head ruefully and refusing to call the name of God, even at gun point! Lol.

Alani - To quote: when you get to the page for posting replies, scroll down and you will see all recent posts in the thread. Each post has a tag where you may click "insert quote" in order to quote such a post.

Deep Sight:

Alani - To quote: when you get to the page for posting replies, scroll down and you will see all recent posts in the thread. Each post has a tag where you may click "insert quote" in order to quote such a post.

Deepsight- Thanks! I get it now.

Hmm, i see we have another awakened personalty here on nairaland. Alanitiogo, is i may ask what are your religious persuasions/ beliefs?

KunleOshob:

Hmm, i see we have another awakened personalty here on nairaland. Alanitiogo, is i may ask what are your religious persuasions/ beliefs?

Thanks. Not sure of the level of my wakefulness though, lol. I used to be a Christian, but lost my faith at the age of eighteen. And since then I have been deriving my spiritual pleasures from reading books; mostly literary novels. I would just say I am a seeker, searching for the truths the gods, out of greed, embedded deep within us ( a la Pastor AIO again, that guy is something! And like him, I also fear labels)

Recently I have developed a strong interest in researching the body of knowledge of Ifa/orisa tradition, but still at the teething stage though. Sometimes I feel frustrated at my ignorance of this heritage. Needless to say, this is made more grating by the fact that I am a Yoruba. Nuff said.

Now Deepsight, tell me yours.

@Kunleoshob. And yours too of course, lol. No one should hoard his gold!

@AlaniTiaogo

Thanks for your reasoned response. I reply as follows:

@M_Nwankwo. Intriguing exegesis you have there. And I find your definition of formlessness in spiritual realms as only a limitation of the percipient from a lower realm unique. Or is there any system of religious or philosophical thought expousing this? Will like to know more, intellectually.

I draw from the work "In The Light of Truth-The Grail Message". I also have personal experiences of worlds that are not visible to the physical organs of perception.

Don’t see the connection of this to perfection. Even the ability to transform yam to stone isn’t necessarily the assurance of perfection or omnipotence. Think about it: omnipotence means infinitely and eternally potent. Not sure if one’s level of maturity, either as man or even as a higher form of existence, would guarantee a stage when ‘laws’ can be teased out of the concept of God.

The connection to perfection is the immutability or unchangebility of the will of God or to be more specific acts of the will of God. I clearly made a distinction between God and acts of the will of God. Just a crude analogy, a gifted author has the ability to produce works of literature. The ability is limitless but once he or she pens a novel titled Bleep, the novel Bleep is not liimitless. Those who want to study the unexpressed abilty of the author are wasting their time for we can only read his or her works, not the ability which expresses itself in his or her books. If the authors ability has the attributes of omniscience and omnipotence, then all her books irrespective of the title or the Message it potrays will carry carry the same markers or reporter tags that this is the work of this author. Thus a reader who have read his various books can just open the first page of his or her newbook and accurately predicts that this is the work of author xxxx even when the athors name is removed in the new book. The point is that if God made yam to produce yam, then that springs from all wisdom (omniscience) and thus can not be changed or improved upon. Although the yam example is an indication of what is meant by the perfection of the will of God on earth,it still does not paint a picture that is closer to reality with respect to God. Perharps the closest description is to say that God is Perfection and Perfection is Eternal-Unchangeable. God is perfection conveys a different and more complete picture than to say that God is perfect. I hope that discussants will see the the point.

Whatever gets trapped can only be principles- divine principles; trapped only by man at his level of understanding, however low. These principles may be incomplete, a mere glimpse of the numinous, but it must not be insincere. The individual gains a better understanding, the society, perhaps a richer humanity…but it will always be limited. No need to be squeamish about this. We are not God

My view is that acts of will of God in themselves are limitlesss but a limitless act of Gods will resides only in God. If these acts of his will or his divine attributes have to manifest, then they are limited by the particular region, world or plane of manifestation. My view is that what ever radiates out of God encapsulates itself with substances from worlds of its intended manifestation. The encaspsulation of these emanations from God limits the emanation or to put it more specifically adapts the emanation to the prevailing conditions and laws manifesting in the worlds of intended manifestation. Thus for instance one cannot fly in the air with ones physical body and even with rockets and space ships ones speed is conditioned by the speed of light, and yet in a soul body one can travel faster than the speed of light for the body of the soul has a far higher speed than that of the light and is not subject to the earthly law of gravity but to a law of gravity that is prevalaent in the worlds or planes in which souls inhabit.   Sure we are not God, but God can also bring revelations of his will to his creatures.

I say this entirely within my limits as a subject, a person, a singular being, who seeks and finds, who thinks and grasps within my personal universe

I admire you humility and keep it up. Stay blessed.

AlaniTiógo:


Now Deepsight, tell me yours.

I do believe in God. And in Meaning within Creation. And in the grand harmony of all created things - which may be beyond our perception.

I believe that i am a human spirit bearing a small spark of life from the source of all life - GOD. We all are.

I believe that the purpose of Earth Life is experiencing: which leads to spiritual growth.

I believe in worlds and lives beyond this world and beyond this life.

I believe that it is possible to logically infer the existence of God, and some of the attributes of God, but absolutely impossible to grasp the nature of God. I have once described myself as an empirical and intuitive deist.

I do not subscribe to any religion: l believe that conscience is all the religion that a man needs - if his conscience be alive, that is.

Philosophically, i would call myself a Deist. But Deism as a world-View is no creed, and thus much is left to the individual to define for himself.

I have great trouble acceding to claims to the divinity of any human being. This includes Jesus of Nazareth. I regard him as a man only. I believe that Divinity, in its intangible purity: in it's ineffability, cannot be approached or apprehended at all.

Men, reflecting this was a wonderful discussion! Learnt sooooo much and very interesting minds.

Whatever happened to Alanitiogo? He must have been an already existing user. . .?

Abi Pastor, was it you: Pastor [size=16pt]A[/size]lan[size=16pt]I[/size]tiog[size=23pt]o[/size]?