What is a sensible religion? Who is to say which religion is sensible, and by what parameters may we sift a sensible religion from a senseless religion?

Well, in addressing this matter, perhaps the first question that we need to ask ourselves is whether or not a religion needs to be sensible at all. This question is cardinal because of the question of faith: many religious people will tell you that theirs is a faith: and that faith is not reason: faith is faith: and faith justifies itself without a requirement for validation by temporal logic.

For the purpose of this article, I might use the argument of the extremes to rebut that. The argument of the extremes is a tool by which one may decipher that which is wrong or right by determining what would result from each concept if applied to the extreme. Although it is true that in the world of nuances in which we live, the argument of the extremes cannot always be applied successfully: it nevertheless has excellent usages. A very simple example would be to say that the principle of love, if applied to the extreme may lead to a soft and loving world, whereas the principle of hatred if applied to the extreme would lead to a violent and inhospitable world. This simple analogy would suffice to show us that the principle of love is superior to the principle of hate.

Similarly I might apply the argument of the extremes to the question of faith. When it is said that faith is not reason, and that faith justifies itself, or that faith needs no validation via temporal logic, what would be the result if this position is subjected to the x-ray under the argument of the extremes?

Well the result would be clear. The human sacrifices of the Aztec would be justified by faith. All manner of violent behavior inspired by religious inclinations and defended by scriptural authority would be justified by faith. Worship by pagans of graven images and idols would be justified by faith. The gender apartheid against women in many societies would be justified by faith. Child marriage would be justified by faith.

The point being made in the foregoing is that each person well has faith in his own belief system, his own scriptural adjurations, his own traditions, and that all of these are diverse beliefs and practices of diverse people which would stand justified by faith if we are to accept that faith needs no validation from temporal reasoning.

It would not be helpful either, for any group to insist that its peculiar beliefs and practices are justified by faith based on divine revelation or divine injunction – for the plain truth is that this claim is open and available, and indeed utilized by all religious groups in one form or the other. Thus, the Christian or Islamic monotheist who would claim superiority of doctrine over the Aztec, based on divine revelation, should recognize that the divinities of the Aztrec, would equally lend a hand of divine authority to the beliefs and practices of that ancient group. I should note as an aside that neither a reference to the Holy Bible or the Holy Quran may be sufficient to condemn Azrtec practices as wrong on the ground of violence alone - as both these books are themselves riddled with a great many instances of divinely sanctioned violence.

That we do not ramble: I should summarize the point being made as this: namely that the defense of faith is available to all: and equally available to all is the defense of divine revelation or divine injunction. For this reason, it is not apt to suppose that either prognosis is an acceptable way to approach these things.

So let us go to the ritualist. We are all uniformly appalled by the specter of the mutilation or murder of human beings for ritualistic purposes. Were the ritualist to advance the position that such rituals are indeed his faith, and are sanctioned by his divine God or gods, we are all certain that we will not entertain such an excuse from him. This is a successful application of the argument of the extremes, and it shows us that faith alone is not sufficient to serve as a justification for any belief or practice which the common conscience of mankind may sense to be inherently and intrinsically unreasonable or reprehensible.

Thus, yes: religions do need to be sensible.

I purpose the forgoing as the prologue to a five-part article within which we shall examine the principal religious doctrines of the world: the Christian, the Islamic, the Buddhist, and the Hindu – with a view to sensing that which is sensible within these worldviews, and if possible. . . that which is not.

Excellent post. Awaiting the next installment.

is this sum kinda anti-Pagan thread

u xtians hav also committed a lot of crimes lyk forced conversions in d past, on pain of death. so r u telling me that thats justifiable by faith. is killing of Pagans justifiable by faith. i know dat there is no respect left for animals in d world today but now is der no sense of respect for fellow humans too

Insightful post!

Deep Sight:

This is a successful application of the argument of the extremes, and it shows us that faith alone is not sufficient to serve as a justification for any belief or practice which the common conscience of mankind may sense to be inherently and intrinsically unreasonable or reprehensible.

I agree. Faith by itself is insufficient to constitute a religion or indeed justify any practises thereof. However faith (that unshakable belief in something that is impossible to prove) is intrinsic to religion and when looked at under the microscope of the "argument of the extremes" has incalculable benefits to mankind.
For example, you wrote:

Deep Sight:

Well the result would be clear. The human sacrifices of the Aztec would be justified by faith. All manner of violent behavior inspired by religious inclinations and defended by scriptural authority would be justified by faith. Worship by pagans of graven images and idols would be justified by faith. The gender apartheid against women in many societies would be justified by faith. Child marriage would be justified by faith.

However, if you look at the other extreme, you'll find that faith can Move Mountains, Heal the Sick, Give Sight to the Blind, Cause the Lame to Walk, Raise the Dead - in other words, Make the Impossible Possible. With "extreme faith" you can do literally anything on this earth.

Regarding the Aztec human sacrifices, I would question whether those things were Acts of Faith or merely Practises of Religion or Culture that emunated from an overall belief system. Another way of looking at it would be - when a Christian takes Holy Communion, is he/she committing an Act of Faith or a Religious Practise? I seriously doubt whether any Christian believes that the bread entering their mouth is literally the flesh of Jesus or the red wine his actual blood. But the practise continues as part of their overall Faith in Jesus. The point is, the Faith part is Jesus dying and resurrecting (an impossibilty made possible) and the religious practise part is the taking of bread and wine.

To me, Faith in its essential form is believing in the (seemingly) impossible - so strongly that it eventually manifests itself. This of course can have good and bad consequences depending on what a person believes so strongly in. But overall, a world filled to the brim with extreme Faith is a glorious thing where magical, impossible things will happen everyday and would be achievable by everyone and anyone. Poverty would not exist except by choice because extreme Faith would allow anyone to literally Move Mountains.

But just imagine a world completely devoid of Faith.   The strong would enslave the weak and the empowered would be free to enact all sorts of wickedness on everyone else. It would be a lot like the world is today - Only worse.

I don't see Faith as the problem here. The problem is man's hijacking of a faith or a belief to justify their own ends - usually for money but more often for power.

- Aztec Human Sacrifice
- The Christian Crusades
- The Islamic Jihads
- The Spanish Inquisition
- The Trans-Atlantic Slave-Trade etc

These have all being carried out in the past under the guise of one faith or another to grossly enrich and empower a group of human beings. But by blaming Faith itself, we stand the risk of throwing the baby out with the bath-water.

Deep Sight:

This is a successful application of the argument of the extremes, and it shows us that faith alone is not sufficient to serve as a justification for any belief or practice which the common conscience of mankind may sense to be inherently and intrinsically unreasonable or reprehensible.

  You cannot post your own argument and then declare it 'successful' DS . . .  the way you are patting yourself on the back self . . . anyways . . .

Thus, yes: religions do need to be sensible.

It would be helpful, if we could clearly iron out -

1 - who a religion needs to be sensible to. Is the practice of my religion (as long as I am not infringing on another human being) supposed to make sense to anyone else but me? is religion a personal journey? is it meant to be subjected to outside standards that will declare it sensible/not sensible?

2 - what exactly sensible entails - seeing how diverse cultures are across the world and across generations. Is there a universal acceptance of this criteria you will select? Should spiritual beliefs be subject to physical judgement?

  Overall, nice article. I would agree that ultimately, if you would stick to solely and completely to the argument of extremes then indeed, successful, but venture a degree center, and like a house of cards . . .

  [size=4pt]and btw, I reserve the right to remain silent on future posts. I is mad busy & lazy lately[/size]

Grey Beard:

I don't see Faith as the problem here. The problem is man's hijacking of a faith or a belief to justify their own ends - usually for money but more often for power.

I remarked recently elsewhere that Religion (or Faith/A Faith) merely amplifies or exposes what a person already is inside. I agree Faith is not the problem - but the alleged practitioners of it. It can be a weapon unto great good or great evil.

Grey Beard:

Insightful post!

I agree. Faith by itself is insufficient to constitute a religion or indeed justify any practises thereof. However faith (that unshakable belief in something that is impossible to prove) is intrinsic to religion and when looked at under the microscope of the "argument of the extremes" has incalculable benefits to mankind.
For example, you wrote:

However, if you look at the other extreme, you'll find that faith can Move Mountains, Heal the Sick, Give Sight to the Blind, Cause the Lame to Walk, Raise the Dead - in other words, Make the Impossible Possible. With "extreme faith" you can do literally anything on this earth.

Regarding the Aztec human sacrifices, I would question whether those things were Acts of Faith or merely Practises of Religion or Culture that emunated from an overall belief system. Another way of looking at it would be - when a Christian takes Holy Communion, is he/she committing an Act of Faith or a Religious Practise? I seriously doubt whether any Christian believes that the bread entering their mouth is literally the flesh of Jesus or the red wine his actual blood. But the practise continues as part of their overall Faith in Jesus. The point is, the Faith part is Jesus dying and resurrecting (an impossibilty made possible) and the religious practise part is the taking of bread and wine.

To me, Faith in its essential form is believing in the (seemingly) impossible - so strongly that it eventually manifests itself. This of course can have good and bad consequences depending on what a person believes so strongly in. But overall, a world filled to the brim with extreme Faith is a glorious thing where magical, impossible things will happen everyday and would be achievable by everyone and anyone. Poverty would not exist except by choice because extreme Faith would allow anyone to literally Move Mountains.

But just imagine a world completely devoid of Faith. The strong would enslave the weak and the empowered would be free to enact all sorts of wickedness on everyone else. It would be a lot like the world is today - Only worse.

I don't see Faith as the problem here. The problem is man's hijacking of a faith or a belief to justify their own ends - usually for money but more often for power.

- Aztec Human Sacrifice
- The Christian Crusades
- The Islamic Jihads
- The Spanish Inquisition
- The Trans-Atlantic Slave-Trade etc

These have all being carried out in the past under the guise of one faith or another to grossly enrich and empower a group of human beings. But by blaming Faith itself, we stand the risk of throwing the baby out with the bath-water.

Many thanks for your excellent comments, Grey Beard. However the thrust of your commentary is somewhat off-topic. This is because the benefits of faith are not disputed; in the same way as the pit-falls of faith are not disputed. Faith arose within my opening article based on the question - Is it necessary for a Religion to be sensible at all? In pursuing that question I noted that many religious people will use the argument of faith to rebut the supposition that religion must make sense. To them, faith is just faith, and it needn't be reasonable.

It was in that specific context that I approached the question of faith: examining the tenability of the position that faith needn't be reasonable. The summary of the argument in the opening article is that religious faith ought to be reasonable. And surely, if religious faith is deployed according to reason, then all these which you mentioned -

- Aztec Human Sacrifice
- The Christian Crusades
- The Islamic Jihads
- The Spanish Inquisition
- The Trans-Atlantic Slave-Trade etc

- - - - Would certainly be avoided.

JeSoul:

  You cannot post your own argument and then declare it 'successful' DS . . .  the way you are patting yourself on the back self . . . anyways . . .

Actually no: recall that I had stated within the early part of the article that the argument of the extremes may not always be applied successfully because we live in a wolrd of nuances. Thus I am merely saying here that this is an instance in which we can actually apply the argument to glean at least some basic premises. The basic premise gleaned is that it is insufficient to base religious beliefs and practices on faith alone.

I also noted that faith is a universal defense for every religion, anyway, and in the same way, divine revelation is claimed by all. The point here being that in addressing the question as to what a sensible religion is, it is not helpful to cite faith and divine revelation as rendering a religion sensible. Everybody will claim these, anyway.

It would be helpful, if we could clearly iron out -

1 - who a religion needs to be sensible to. Is the practice of my religion (as long as I am not infringing on another human being) supposed to make sense to anyone else but me? is religion a personal journey? is it meant to be subjected to outside standards that will declare it sensible/not sensible?

This is a very dangerous argument you are attempting to make: you should recognise that it will be well suited to even the pagan human sacrifice ritualist: who would well conclude that his religion only needs to be sensible to himself and as such, remains good and acceptable. [Edit: This is an innapropriate example as I have noted in my post No. 10 below]

I am persuaded that it is a superior view to hold that where there is common reason, the commonality of mankind should be able to recognise such. To give a very simple and plain argument of the extremes: if a man were to state that his religion consists only of a commitment to assist the less privileged: no one, bar non one - could view that as unreasonable. The man thus has no need to insist that his religion must only make sense to himself and no one else. In truth, such insistence is the seed ground of divisive fanaticism.

2 - what exactly sensible entails - seeing how diverse cultures are across the world and across generations. Is there a universal acceptance of this criteria you will select?

It was my intention to place this very issue at the centre of the second part of my article, and I will do so.

Should spiritual beliefs be subject to physical judgement?

What is "physical judgment?" Reason is reason. That is why Jesus himself ALWAYS deployed simple logical explanatory parables from the physical world around him to impart spiritual truths. Reason holds the same in a basic sense. This is why, for example, the physical phenomenon of seed time and harvest time is used to impart and explain the spiritual truth of reaping what we sow. Similarly the laws of gravity, magnetism etc, are all used to explain spiritiual truths, notwithstanding that these are physical laws. Or I might more accurately say that these are laws which also have a physical manifestation. I say this because, all laws are really various manifestations of the one singular and ultimate principle encapsulated in primordial divinity. That principle manifests itself in an infinite array of ways as different laws within creation. A single law will have spiritual as well as physical applications. Hence analogies may be extrapolated from a physical law to understand a spiritual truth. That is what Jesus did in so many of his parables.

Similarly I might apply the argument of the extremes to the question of faith. When it is said that faith is not reason, and that faith justifies itself, or that faith needs no validation via temporal logic, what would be the result if this position is subjected to the x-ray under the argument of the extremes?

Hi DeepSight. Faith in my sensing is not what is defined above. Probably what is stated above is what is commonly refereed to as blind faith as opposed to genuine faith. Genuine faith  is the conviction that comes from experiencing the laws of God in all planes of creation, not just the physical universes. Faith, thus resides in the spirit of man, that is, it is an integral "component" of a spirit who is alive in the creations of God. To be alive in the creations of God is to absorb the rays of love that vibrates in all creations and dispense it accordingly. As a spirit absorbs and  dispenses the rays of love, it is in reciprocity also absorbing the varied and complex manifestations of the laws of God. A time comes when these laws of God or rather the manifestations becomes an integral "part" of the spirit. Such a spirit  has faith as the various strings of the laws of God vibrates in his spirit and  these living strings links him to the living LAW (GOD). It is this spiritual link with GOD that imbues the spirit with faith. At this point, it is important to note that many who are linked in this way may not be conscious of it while in there physical bodies. But whether they are conscious or oblivious of it, the sigh of genuine faith is unmistakable- love, humility, selflessness , contaminating inner calmness, common sense, impeccable logic, infectious joy etc. Logic in this context is the ability to know what is right or wrong, that is, the ability to know in all circumstances what is according to the laws of God.

This link with the living law which  as I stated above imprints the spirit with faith also gives such a spirit a birds eye view allowing it to sense things that was, is and will be. By this I do not mean clairvoyance and similar stuff. The manifestations of genuine faith are the evidence of faith. Thus a spiritual manifestation of faith will have a spiritual evidence and likewise a physical manifestation of faith will have physical evidence. Genuine faith does not justify itself, rather the fruits of genuine faith are the rationale. Genuine faith in God is incompatible with sin in all its manifestation. Those who harm others in words, actions or thoughts in the name of God have blind faith, not genuine faith.

The idea that faith is the conviction that impossible things will be possible by faith is incorrect in my view. Genuine faith provides the  fertile soil for the power of God to be planted and nothing more. Once planted the power of God which bears the laws of God will work itself out according to the laws of God. Thus events that are impossible according to the laws of God remain impossible. But the realm of what is possible within the laws of God is so vast that many a thing presently considered impossible by the human mind and its inventions are indeed possible. But, let me not veer off the  topic at hand.

This genuine faith that resides in the spirit has to consciously envelop the cloaks of the spirit including the physical body and its coordinating center - the brain. Only in such a way will a spirit with genuine faith work consciously within the laws of God. If the radiation connections between the spirit that has genuine faith and the various cloaks covering the spirit are impaired, then such a spirit with physical body or other cloaks will act or expect things that lies outside the laws of God and because they lie outside the laws of God, it will never come to pass. The power emanating from ones connection with God is all empowering that it gives one the impression that anything is possible and this initial experience has been the albatross of many blessed and gifted servants of God. They rushed too fast, yes they are connected with the power of God but the consciousness of the manifestations of this power of God in gross material realms have not broken through. Thus they make promises in the name of God which will never be fulfilled, either because such promises lie outside the laws of God or they contradict the laws of God. If you look around today across all religions, you will perhaps see the consequences of rushing too fast by many a blessed one.

Though it does not directly belong here, I will mention it. When Jesus became conscious that he is indeed an incarnation of the unsubstantiate love of God, a son of God, the divine power that just broke through his envelopes was overwhelming but the omniscience that will permit Jesus to work consciously according to the laws of God, the father have not yet broken through. It was at this turning point that Lucifer who became the Antichrist aimed his temptation. Lucifer believed that the best time for tempting Jesus is when he has become conscious of his divine power but not yet "fully" conscious of the application of this divine power. Lucifer then requested Jesus to prove his divinity by turning stones to bread,  at this point, the conscious application of the divine power broke through and Jesus rebuked the tempter "Though shall not tempt  the LORD your GOD". Lucifer know the laws of God and know that it is impossible to turn stones to bread. By this he wanted to undermine the mission of the son of God at the very beginning because if Jesus have gone to the multitude and commanded stones to become bread, then the command will be of no effect and the multitudes would have declared him an impostor and a fake miracle worker. Exploitation of seeming weaknesses is the hallmark of Lucifer, the Antichrist and his followers. As always stay blessed.

Hi Jesoul. I need to make a correction of my earlier response to you.

When you said -

1 - who a religion needs to be sensible to. Is the practice of my religion (as long as I am not infringing on another human being) supposed to make sense to anyone else but me? is religion a personal journey? is it meant to be subjected to outside standards that will declare it sensible/not sensible?

And I responded -

This is a very dangerous argument you are attempting to make: you should recognise that it will be well suited to even the pagan human sacrifice ritualist: who would well conclude that his religion only needs to be sensible to himself and as such, remains good and acceptable.

- - - I need to note that my response was not proper because on reading your post again i see that you had already inserted the caveat "(as long as I am not infringing on another human being). So my example above may not be very apt.

Nonetheless let me note generally that religions do have an insidious way of affecting everything in the world, even when one does not subscribe to religions. And let me reiterate the latter part of my response where I noted that -

I am persuaded that it is a superior view to hold that where there is common reason, the commonality of mankind should be able to recognise such. To give a very simple and plain argument of the extremes: if a man were to state that his religion consists only of a commitment to assist the less privileged: no one, bar non one - could view that as unreasonable. The man thus has no need to insist that his religion must only make sense to himself and no one else. In truth, such insistence is the seed ground of divisive fanaticism.

Thanks.

Thanks for the reply DS. I look forward to the 2nd installment of your article where you dive a little deeper . . . thanks again.

Pastor AIO:

http://www.oneworld-publications.com/books/texts/faith-and-reason-intro.htm



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Averroes#Logic

This is bizarre. I posted on this thread this morning but I can't find the post. It is in my 'last posts by this person' list but it is not on the thread.

^ Spambot. It was showing earlier, but I can see its now tagged - that is the strange part. I've pm'd the admin to untag it.

JeSoul:

^ Spambot. It was showing earlier, but I can see its now tagged - that is the strange part. I've pm'd the admin to untag it.

Thanks

Deep Sight:

Faith arose within my opening article based on the question - Is it necessary for a Religion to be sensible at all? In pursuing that question I noted that many religious people will use the argument of faith to rebut the supposition that religion must make sense. To them, faith is just faith, and it needn't be reasonable.

I think we can agree that Faith and Religion are not the same and in the context of your original post I think using the two terms inter-changeably is mis-leading.
A faith doesn't have to be a religion but a religion includes faith at its centre and is completed by a number of other components. So in my view a religion can make sense without requiring it's core faith to make sense.


However, if someone says that their faith demands they kill others in order to enter paradise  then I think you'll find that they have been misled by others looking to use faith for their own ends.

Deep Sight:


It was in that specific context that I approached the question of faith: examining the tenability of the position that faith needn't be reasonable. The summary of the argument in the opening article is that religious faith ought to be reasonable. And surely, if religious faith is deployed according to reason, then all these which you mentioned -

- Aztec Human Sacrifice
- The Christian Crusades
- The Islamic Jihads
- The Spanish Inquisition
- The Trans-Atlantic Slave-Trade etc

- - -  - Would certainly be avoided.

There is nothing wrong with the faiths or religions used to justify these events in history. The faiths are beautiful and and religions honourable. What caused these event to occur were the people who exploited those religions to their own ends. If you properly examine all the religions today (apart for Judaism which is more of a culture than a religion) you'll see they are all reasonable and seek to provide mankind with a good moral compass. But what makes them seem senseless in some cases is when they are manipulated by unscrupulous individuals who seek to use the nature of faith itself to justify their acts.

The reality of the matter is that even if somehow all religion and all faith was eliminated from this world,  it will not change the nature of some men willing to do anything for power. Religion is just a tool they use and if it is no longer there or changed to make it impossible for them to use it, they will simply use some other means to achieve their goals. As long as there is Power, there will be evil. And as long as there are human beings, there will be power.

Grey Beard:

I think we can agree that Faith and Religion are not the same and in the context of your original post I think using the two terms inter-changeably is mis-leading.

Very well. We must however agree that there is such a creature known as religious faith - that faith which is based on the doctrine and dogma of a religion, and adhered to as such.

A faith doesn't have to be a religion but a religion includes faith at its centre and is completed by a number of other components. So in my view a religion can make sense without requiring it's core faith to make sense.

I feel that this is a violently contradictory statement - unless of course you can rationalize it for me?

Is faith like an emotion - something that one just feels and which as such needn't make sense? I don't think so. Have you read the post of m_nwankwo above? Please do review it and share your thoughts.

However, if someone says that their faith demands they kill others in order to enter paradise then I think you'll find that they have been misled by others looking to use faith for their own ends.

Certainly. This may also be true of many other less harmful beliefs.

There is nothing wrong with the faiths or religions used to justify these events in history. The faiths are beautiful and and religions honourable. What caused these event to occur were the people who exploited those religions to their own ends. If you properly examine all the religions today (apart for Judaism which is more of a culture than a religion) you'll see they are all reasonable and seek to provide mankind with a good moral compass. But what makes them seem senseless in some cases is when they are manipulated by unscrupulous individuals who seek to use the nature of faith itself to justify their acts.

Quite agreed: just as a point of interest though, do you regard Judaism as unreasonable?

The reality of the matter is that even if somehow all religion and all faith was eliminated from this world, it will not change the nature of some men willing to do anything for power. Religion is just a tool they use and if it is no longer there or changed to make it impossible for them to use it, they will simply use some other means to achieve their goals. As long as there is Power, there will be evil. And as long as there are human beings, there will be power.

Absolutely.

m_nwankwo:

Hi DeepSight. Faith in my sensing is not what is defined above. Probably what is stated above is what is commonly refereed to as blind faith as opposed to genuine faith. Genuine faith  is the conviction that comes from experiencing the laws of God in all planes of creation, not just the physical universes. Faith, thus resides in the spirit of man, that is, it is an integral "component" of a spirit who is alive in the creations of God. To be alive in the creations of God is to absorb the rays of love that vibrates in all creations and dispense it accordingly. As a spirit absorbs and  dispenses the rays of love, it is in reciprocity also absorbing the varied and complex manifestations of the laws of God. A time comes when these laws of God or rather the manifestations becomes an integral "part" of the spirit. Such a spirit  has faith as the various strings of the laws of God vibrates in his spirit and  these living strings links him to the living LAW (GOD). It is this spiritual link with GOD that imbues the spirit with faith. At this point, it is important to note that many who are linked in this way may not be conscious of it while in there physical bodies. But whether they are conscious or oblivious of it, the sigh of genuine faith is unmistakable- love, humility, selflessness , contaminating inner calmness, common sense, impeccable logic, infectious joy etc. Logic in this context is the ability to know what is right or wrong, that is, the ability to know in all circumstances what is according to the laws of God.

This link with the living law which  as I stated above imprints the spirit with faith also gives such a spirit a birds eye view allowing it to sense things that was, is and will be. By this I do not mean clairvoyance and similar stuff. The manifestations of genuine faith are the evidence of faith. Thus a spiritual manifestation of faith will have a spiritual evidence and likewise a physical manifestation of faith will have physical evidence. Genuine faith does not justify itself, rather the fruits of genuine faith are the rationale. Genuine faith in God is incompatible with sin in all its manifestation. Those who harm others in words, actions or thoughts in the name of God have blind faith, not genuine faith.

The idea that faith is the conviction that impossible things will be possible by faith is incorrect in my view. Genuine faith provides the  fertile soil for the power of God to be planted and nothing more. Once planted the power of God which bears the laws of God will work itself out according to the laws of God. Thus events that are impossible according to the laws of God remain impossible. But the realm of what is possible within the laws of God is so vast that many a thing presently considered impossible by the human mind and its inventions are indeed possible. But, let me not veer off the  topic at hand.

This genuine faith that resides in the spirit has to consciously envelop the cloaks of the spirit including the physical body and its coordinating center - the brain. Only in such a way will a spirit with genuine faith work consciously within the laws of God. If the radiation connections between the spirit that has genuine faith and the various cloaks covering the spirit are impaired, then such a spirit with physical body or other cloaks will act or expect things that lies outside the laws of God and because they lie outside the laws of God, it will never come to pass. The power emanating from ones connection with God is all empowering that it gives one the impression that anything is possible and this initial experience has been the albatross of many blessed and gifted servants of God. They rushed too fast, yes they are connected with the power of God but the consciousness of the manifestations of this power of God in gross material realms have not broken through. Thus they make promises in the name of God which will never be fulfilled, either because such promises lie outside the laws of God or they contradict the laws of God. If you look around today across all religions, you will perhaps see the consequences of rushing too fast by many a blessed one.

Though it does not directly belong here, I will mention it. When Jesus became conscious that he is indeed an incarnation of the unsubstantiate love of God, a son of God, the divine power that just broke through his envelopes was overwhelming but the omniscience that will permit Jesus to work consciously according to the laws of God, the father have not yet broken through. It was at this turning point that Lucifer who became the Antichrist aimed his temptation. Lucifer believed that the best time for tempting Jesus is when he has become conscious of his divine power but not yet "fully" conscious of the application of this divine power. Lucifer then requested Jesus to prove his divinity by turning stones to bread,  at this point, the conscious application of the divine power broke through and Jesus rebuked the tempter "Though shall not tempt  the LORD your GOD". Lucifer know the laws of God and know that it is impossible to turn stones to bread. By this he wanted to undermine the mission of the son of God at the very beginning because if Jesus have gone to the multitude and commanded stones to become bread, then the command will be of no effect and the multitudes would have declared him an impostor and a fake miracle worker. Exploitation of seeming weaknesses is the hallmark of Lucifer, the Antichrist and his followers. As always stay blessed.

The above is excellent! I completely agree with it. I recommend to every poster/reader of this thread to carefully read the above post.

Ok. . . .I should continue with this. . . .

Loading. . .

A sensible religion? Hmmm that sounds to me like an oxymoron.