Religion of Love

Man » CD » Diseases and Messiah  (Previous | Next)

Diseases and Messiah

[1097] Depressions depress us if we went too far in certain respects. It is true that substances can induce mental diseases. But it is true as well that only the mentioned category of persons receives them. Whether and how a suitable drug has an effect, depends on the personality of the person that takes it. Diseases and their cure are always a struggle for this personality.

[1098] The cause of a non-innate disease can be isolated by a detailed anamnesis. The growing importance of environmental factors is to charge the development of society as a whole. Innate diseases are caused in a past life: The heavier they are the greater are the previous impacts. Conversely, special gifts can point to a rewarded past life.

[1099] With a disease is not only the person concerned zerself but also zer environment demanded. L knows exactly what ze expects of whom. No world is a plaything of zer whims and arbitrariness, since every creature has the right to a justification of the acting of L. But there are always coherences of that only ze or the responsible divine instances know the cause. There is an explanation for everything, even if we have not got it.

[489] If the Messiah could heal humans, then this would be due to everybody. Since diseases are sometimes useful states in that we can regenerate and prove ourselves, some would have to be excluded from the healing process, which could take place for temporal reasons only as simultaneous spontaneous healing in form of a miracle. The Messiah would have to judge each person and act accordingly.

[490] If the healing happens unconditionally, it would be independent of the development of humans. This represents a justice problem. New diseases might not develop likewise any longer if there is for this no reason in humans. If the state of health were dependent on man, this would have to position zerself morally first. The divine order would have been avoided, the divine compensation would become obsolete.

[491] Accidents might not occur likewise anymore from moral reasons or would have immediately to entail a healing. Then either laws of nature would have to be abrogated or L respectively the Messiah would have always to intervene. The care of the sick would be limited to moral diseases. All in all, we would have a massive change of the world that limits the freedom substantially: Who makes mistakes becomes ill, who does not not.

[492] Sick people would be stigmatised: They failed morally or need a trial. How does one deal with suicides? Is each divergence from the norm a disease? Have pathogenic germs lost their right to live or must they conform to the moral of humans: Who does wrong may be affected? Who does right is immune to all germs? Who does right cannot be killed?

[493] Humans die suddenly and without any reason? If someone wants to be ill, but acts morally correctly, may ze be excluded from an illness? Does ze never become ill and is zis will broken with each attempt to become ill (accident)? When ze becomes ill, will ze be healed only if the environment is sick of zis illness and then compulsorily? Does ze have the opportunity to talk in detail with the Messiah about zis desire for illness?

[494] One can summarise: A healing Messiah, doing justice to all humans, must have divine characteristics in order to fulfil the notions of humans (and animals). Animals might eat animals no more. The divine order for this world would be perverted. We live in a world in that we have liberties and in that the laws of nature apply mostly. This version has severities, but the model of compensation by L is righteous.

[495] A judging Messiah would have to judge simultaneously and talk to each person thoroughly if the process should not last too long and be fair. It would need again divine characteristics. L or the responsible divine instance would have to approve of this judging and do without it. The natural process at the end of life, if one arrives at the subsequent world, would have been avoided. That is possible, but unnecessary.

[585] L and I form a unit, but we are different beings: Ze is L and I am a human being and L in part. This part is enough to be entitled to write down the word of L. It is not enough for tasks that L alone is entitled to look after. L answers prayers alone. L alone works miracles, even if they were initiated by me. I am glad to may serve L as zis part and enunciator.

[882] If I may work for the word of L, so all people benefit from this: There is no preference in itself since the vast majority of people repudiates this hard, tedious, demanding, thankless and undetermined work. The resulting knowledge is due to its abundance hard to remember, although the cognitions are deep and far-reaching. It is hard to speak from gratitude of others in this respect.

[883] The particular counterperformance of L is simply to ensure the accomplishment of this task and to have in zer a always responsive dialogue partner. Ze keeps me in a good mood, but does not yet prevent from disappointments. Ze sends me ideas, questions, requests, visions and dreams, but which cannot be passed unchecked and unfiltered. Ze makes sure that our work will be ready in time.

© 2006-2009 by Boris Haase

Valid XHTML 1.0 • Disclaimer • imprint • • pdf-version • questionnaire • bibliography • subjects • definitions • php-code • sitemap • rss-feed • top